The Biden administration has recently shifted its stance on supporting a cap on plastic production as part of the United Nations’ global plastics treaty. In a closed-door meeting last week, White House staffers informed representatives from environmental organizations that they did not view mandatory production caps as a viable option for the upcoming fifth round of plastics treaty negotiations, known as INC-5, set to take place in Busan, South Korea.
This change represents a departure from the administration’s earlier indication of supporting limits on plastic production. In August, the U.S. had signaled its support for a global treaty calling for a reduction in new plastic production each year. However, the recent briefing revealed a different approach, with U.S. delegates favoring a more flexible strategy where countries set voluntary targets for reducing plastic production.
The news came as a shock to advocates like Jo Banner and Frankie Orona, who had been hopeful for a stronger stance on capping plastic production. Banner, co-founder of The Descendants Project, expressed disappointment at the apparent lack of alignment between advocates and the administration. Orona, executive director of the Society of Native Nations, described the news as devastating, reflecting a significant setback in the fight against plastic pollution.
The disagreement over the treaty’s focus highlights a central conflict in the negotiations. While some countries and environmental groups push for measures to curb plastic production, others, particularly oil-exporting nations, seek a more lenient approach with voluntary national targets. The lack of consensus on this issue has stalled progress in finalizing the treaty.
The specific policies that the U.S. will now support remain unclear. While the administration aims to address the supply of primary plastic polymers, the details of how this will be achieved are still uncertain. This ambiguity has raised concerns among advocates, who fear that without concrete measures like production limits, the treaty may fall short of its goal to end plastic pollution.
Critics have also pointed out a potential loophole in the U.S.’s approach, suggesting that addressing the supply of plastics could involve only marginal reductions in the industry’s growth rates, allowing plastic production to continue increasing. This lack of clarity and ambition in the U.S.’s position has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who argue that stronger action is needed to combat the plastic crisis.
As negotiations for the global plastics treaty continue, advocates are calling for greater transparency and a clearer commitment from the Biden administration. The recent shift in the U.S.’s position underscores the challenges in reaching a consensus on how best to tackle plastic pollution on a global scale. Environmental groups have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of focusing on individual plastic products in efforts to reduce plastic pollution. They argue that this approach is less effective due to the wide variety of plastic products on the market and the lack of complete information about the chemicals used in these products.
Critics of this approach believe that it shifts the conversation away from addressing the root causes of plastic pollution, such as petrochemical refineries and plastics manufacturing facilities that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. By solely targeting products, environmental groups argue that the focus is shifted downstream and fails to address the larger systemic issues at play.
Some advocates have even gone as far as to suggest that the U.S. should step aside from international treaty talks on plastic pollution. With the incoming Trump administration unlikely to support such a treaty and a Republican-controlled Senate unlikely to ratify it, there is a growing sentiment that high-ambition countries should focus on advancing the most ambitious version of the treaty possible without U.S. involvement.
Viola Waghiyi, the environmental health and justice program director for the nonprofit Alaska Community Action on Toxics, has highlighted the direct impacts of weak plastic pollution regulation on her Native community in Alaska. From climate change to microplastic pollution in the Arctic Ocean, the effects of plastic production are felt acutely in her community. She emphasized the need to protect the voices of the most vulnerable, including Indigenous peoples, workers, waste pickers, and future generations.
Waghiyi specifically raised concerns about the impact of endocrine-disrupting plastic chemicals on children’s neurological development and the preservation of Indigenous culture and traditions. She questioned how future generations could learn and carry on their heritage if their health and environment are compromised by plastic pollution.
Overall, environmental groups are calling for a more comprehensive and systemic approach to addressing plastic pollution, one that prioritizes environmental justice, community voices, and the protection of vulnerable populations. By shifting the focus away from individual products and towards larger systemic issues, they believe that real progress can be made in tackling the plastic pollution crisis.
